send_onboarding_email

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'Send an onboarding email' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., logging, idempotency, rate limits) or describe what happens after sending. This lack of behavioral context reduces transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a short purpose statement, bullet list of variants with triggers, a clear Args section, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core action, parameters, and usage scenarios. However, it omits return value information (e.g., success/error responses) and any prerequisites (e.g., user must exist). Given the lack of an output schema, this omission is notable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description's Args section explains each parameter: to_email (recipient email), variant (lists allowed values via the variants list), and days_left (context for trial_end). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool sends an onboarding email, with specific verb 'Send' and resource 'onboarding email'. It further distinguishes by listing three variants (welcome, day7, trial_end) that are not present in any sibling tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context for each variant (e.g., 'sent on email capture', 'Nudge for users who haven't connected a provider yet'). Examples further clarify use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or exclude alternatives, which is acceptable given no competing email tools are present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.